# How likely is it that one is not actually related to his or her family?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 8, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368 "2010-12-08T01:52:35Z")
**Posts on this page:** 18
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@CatherineZeta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatherineZeta)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/1 "2010-12-08T01:52:35Z")
Ignoring adoption, obviously…I’m talking about those switched at birth stories.
Due to security measures taken in hospitals i.e. matching wristbands placed on the mom and baby, locked maternity wards, etc. it is clear that this is a highly unlikely event and the cases that have been publicized were news because it’s such an unlikely situation.
But on the other hand, what are the chances that one would ever find out? Couldn’t it be more common than we realize, there’s just no reason to challenge the fact that the people we grew up with are our biological parents (and most people do not encounter medical or criminal situations that necessitate the DNA testing of themselves against family members)? And most people look similar enough, or have diverse enough family backgrounds that little Janey with blonde hair in a dark family could be dismissed as, “Great aunty-Hildegarde’s daddy was a Swede.”
I don’t actually think I was switched at birth, not that it would make a difference at this point any way, aside from upsetting lots of people, but I look NOTHING like my family aside from the fact that I’m of European descent like they are. The most likely explanation is that I have such a blend of characteristics that it’s made me not look like anyone, or I look like someone long dead. I still wonder sometimes and think it would be interesting if I had a different family somewhere else, although I would not abandon my current one, who raised me from birth.
---
### Author:  [@SpeedwayRyan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpeedwayRyan)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/2 "2010-12-08T02:01:22Z")
> [@CatherineZeta](#):
>
> Due to security measures taken in hospitals i.e. matching wristbands placed on the mom and baby, locked maternity wards, etc. it is clear that this is a highly unlikely event and the cases that have been publicized were news because it’s such an unlikely situation.
Seems like those measures were probably implemented because it didn’t use to be quite so unlikely. Before the wards were on lockdown, before security cards, before matching wristbands, it may have been something that happened more often than it should have. After all, babies DO all look a lot alike…🙂
---
### Author:  [@CatherineZeta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatherineZeta)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/3 "2010-12-08T02:06:11Z")
When did those security measures start becoming the norm? 80s? 90s? 00s?
---
### Author:  [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/4 "2010-12-08T03:30:02Z")
Wrist bands are one thing, but security cards and lock-downs are presumably to prevent the theft (kidnapping) of babies not mix-ups. And wristbands go way back. I have one I wore as a baby in 1949. It’s beads rather than plastic but it has my last name on it – separate beads in fact so some staff person threaded the individual beads on.
---
### Author:  [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/5 "2010-12-08T18:58:44Z")
You don’t need a DNA test to be suspicious. Blood type is something that is fairly routinely tested for and that can be one clue. Later in life, unusual medical conditions can lead to things coming out too.
---
### Author:  [@EdwardLost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwardLost)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/6 "2010-12-08T20:29:33Z")
There was an interesting segment on NPR’s “This American Life” about a case. Two girls in a small town, in the 60’s (I think), grew up in each other’s family. Some people in the town knew or suspected but didn’t spill the beans until the girls were adults. The girls didn’t suspect, but once they were told they realized how obviously out of place they had been growing up and how much more they resembled their biological kin.
---
### Author:  [@Add99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Add99)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/7 "2010-12-09T02:07:40Z")
Not your case, of course, but the simplest explanation is always the milkman.
---
### Author:  [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/8 "2010-12-09T21:43:59Z")
> [@Add99](#):
>
> Not your case, of course, but the simplest explanation is always the milkman.
In one study of British genealogy using DNA testing, it turned out that between 10 and 15% of Brits didn’t have the biological father they thought they had.
But as to actual mixups, while I am sure they happened, I am pretty sure they were rare. Until the 20th century, most births were at home and after they started being in hospitals, they started doing things like footprints and wristbands.
---
### Author:  [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/9 "2010-12-10T18:40:52Z")
There was a pretty tragic case a decade or two ago. I’m not 100% sure of the specifics, but IIRC it involved a teenage girl in Florida. For reasons I’m not exactly clear on, she was raised by a family that wasn’t hers biologically. When she was around 13 or 14 or so her bio family wanted her back and involved the courts, taking custody of her and even changing her name. She ran away, multiple times, back to the only family she had ever known. I think as an adult she had some problems with drugs and alcohol.
I’ll try to dig around and see if I can find out the specifics.
---
### Author:  [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/10 "2010-12-10T18:51:30Z")
That was the tragic [Kimberly Mays/Arlena Twig](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978912,00.html) baby switch. The basic facts are that the Mays had tried for several years to have a child before Barbara Mays finally gave birth to a baby girl with serious heart problems. Two days later, Regina Twigg gave birth to a healthy baby girl. Somehow, the babies got switched.
Two years later, Barbara Mays died of cancer. Her husband was remarried and later divorced.
When Arlena Twigg was seven, her family found out her blood type was B, while the rest of the family’ had type O, proving she was not their biological daughter. They did nothing about this for two years. After Arlena died, they went looking for their “real” daughter and started a nasty custody battle. Eentually, Kimberly would have her legal ties to the Twiggs cut off, later go to live with them, then go back to lie with Mays. She would lose custody of her own son as an unfit mother, and later be arrested for prostitution.
The whole story is one of incredible suffering.
---
### Author:  [@RachelChristine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RachelChristine)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/11 "2010-12-11T00:30:57Z")
I remember watching a made-for-tv movie about the Mays/Twig baby switch back in the late 90s. So sad! I occasionally look it up on the internet to see what has happened to her since then.
I remember reading, at that time, that “an average of 3 babies per year are switched at birth”. Now I know about averages, and how you could get that number, but it still always made me giggle that they could switch 3 babies!
My grandma always said that when she had her first baby (mid-40s), they brought her the wrong one in the hospital. When she asked about it, they checked and sure enough had switched the babies.
---
### Author:  [@spenczar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spenczar)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/12 "2010-12-11T00:47:35Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#):
>
> In one study of British genealogy using DNA testing, it turned out that between 10 and 15% of Brits didn’t have the biological father they thought they had.
Really? That’s amazing. Do you have a cite or remember any of the keywords I could look for?
To clarify, this isn’t a “YOU LIE!” cite request, but rather a “that sounds interesting and I really want to read that study” cite request.
---
### Author:  [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/13 "2010-12-11T01:06:17Z")
> [@EdwardLost](#):
>
> There was an interesting segment on NPR’s “This American Life” about a case. Two girls in a small town, in the 60’s (I think), grew up in each other’s family. Some people in the town knew or suspected but didn’t spill the beans until the girls were adults. The girls didn’t suspect, but once they were told they realized how obviously out of place they had been growing up and how much more they resembled their biological kin.
[Here’s the episode](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/360/switched-at-birth). Two baby girls, switched soon after birth in a hospital in Wisconsin, 1951. One of the mothers knew, and had been dropping hints for years, but never said anything until the girls were 43.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2010, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/14 "2010-12-11T06:48:02Z")
The thread title made me think of this case, which I heard about recently: [Lydia Fairchild](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Fairchild).
Long story short: a DNA test indicates that a woman is not the mother of her own children. It is later discovered that she has chimerism, an extremely rare condition in which a person can have two different sets of DNA in a single body. She did give birth to her children, but their DNA doesn’t match hers (at least, doesn’t match the DNA she carries in the traditionally-tested areas).
---
### Author:  [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2010, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/15 "2010-12-11T08:10:00Z")
> [@spenczar](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > In one study of British genealogy using DNA testing, it turned out that between 10 and 15% of Brits didn’t have the biological father they thought they had.
>
> Really? That’s amazing. Do you have a cite or remember any of the keywords I could look for?
I have the same question, as the claim contradicts what I’ve read elsewhere.
Perhaps poster is misremembering a same-surname study with a 10 to 15% failure rate, implying cuckolding at any one of a dozen or more links in a genealogical chain, which in turn implies a per-link cuckolding rate of 1% or less.
My Google-fu is poor, but just now I found [a paper](http://www.biomedsearch.com/attachments/00/19/20/40/19204044/msp022.pdf) that looks to be a very good read. Skimming it, I see
> [@](#):
>
> ‘‘Attenborough’’ provides the clearest signal of coancestry, with 87% of chromosomes belonging to hgE1b1b1, which is present at only 1% in controls.
which seems to imply a per-link cuckolding rate in that family of much less than 1%.
---
### Author:  [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2010, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/16 "2010-12-11T13:21:55Z")
When I was a kid, I talked with my mum about this, she was the head nurse in pediatrics units and she said, that after a day or so you could easily tell babies apart. This was in the late 40s and 50s and she said, the mothers stayed for five days and they were brought babies to nurse and to give lessons to change them but babies were pretty well guarded.
They were banded and footprinted right away so they could always be checked if someone made an error.
Now she said, if there was a nurse that switched them it would be very easy to do, as nurses were assigned babies, and they could switch them without too much notice.
---
### Author:  [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/17 "2010-12-11T14:56:31Z")
There was a case in these parts where a fertility clinic accidentally switched two bfrozen embryos. Case came to light when the mothers gave birth–African-American to a white baby and vice versa. If that hadn’t been the case, who knows how long it would have taken for the error to be discovered, if ever?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-one-is-not-actually-related-to-his-or-her-family/563368/18 "2010-12-11T17:37:27Z")
> [@spenczar](#):
>
> Really? That’s amazing. Do you have a cite or remember any of the keywords I could look for?
>
> To clarify, this isn’t a “YOU LIE!” cite request, but rather a “that sounds interesting and I really want to read that study” cite request.
I’m just going from memory, but I think the rate is more like 5%.
And a little wiki-fu confirms that.
> [@](#):
>
> The rate of [non-paternity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event) is commonly quoted to be around 10%.[1][2][3] However, a 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%), suggesting that the widely quoted figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate.